Citation Nr: 21061881
Decision Date: 10/05/21	Archive Date: 10/05/21

DOCKET NO. 17-47 845
DATE: October 5, 2021

ORDER

Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from April 1966 to March 1970. 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeal (Board) on appeal of a February 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia.  

The Veteran requested a video hearing on his VA Form 9 but later withdrew this request on September 1, 2021. 

REASONS FOR REMAND

While the Board regrets further delay, additional development is needed before this claim is decided. 

The Veteran underwent a VA examination to assess his hearing loss in February 2016.  Subsequently, he provided two private audiological assessments dated June 2015 and August 2017.  The August 2017 private audiological assessment shows a potential worsening of his hearing loss disability.  The Board notes the private examination did not use the Maryland CNC word recognition testing as required by 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a), thus it is not a valid examination for rating purposes. 

However, as there is evidence of a worsening of the Veteran's disability since the last VA examination, his claim must be remanded for a new examination to determine the current severity of his disability.  Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997).  

Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: 

Afford the Veteran a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise to fully assess the severity of the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability.  All pertinent evidence of record should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner.  Any indicated studies should be performed.

Ensure the examiner provides all information required for rating purposes.  If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary, he or she should be directed to clearly explain why that is so.

 

 

T. REYNOLDS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Nestander, Jessica S.

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.